The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm
Maslow: man interrupted:
reading management theory in
context
Kelly Dye
Maslow: man
interrupted
1375
Fred C. Manning School of Business Administration, Acadia University,
Wolfville, Canada
Albert J. Mills
Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada, and
Terrance Weatherbee
Fred C. Manning School of Business Administration, Acadia University,
Wolfville, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to build on recent work in the field of management and historiography
that argues that management theorizing needs to be understood in its historical context.
Design/methodology/approach – First, the paper attempts to show how a steady filtering of
management theory and of the selection and work of management theorists lends itself to a narrowly
focused, managerialist, and functionalist perspective. Second, the paper attempts to show how not only
left-wing ideas, but also even the rich complexity of mainstream ideas, have been “written out” of
management accounts. The paper explores these points through an examination of the treatment of
Abraham Maslow in management texts over time.
Findings – The paper’s conclusion is a simple one: management theory – whether mainstream or
critical – does a disservice to the potential of the field when it oversimplifies to a point where a given
theory or theorist is misread because sufficient context, history, and reflection are missing from the
presentation/dissemination.
Originality/value – This paper highlights the importance of reading the original texts, rather than
second or third person accounts, and the importance of reading management theory in the context in
which it was/is derived.
Keywords Management history, Gender, Culture
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
A cogent argument has been made elsewhere for the importance of historiography in
management research (Kieser, 1994; Rowlinson and Procter, 1999) and, more
specifically, for understanding management theory and management theorists in
context. Mills and Helms Hatfield (1998), for example, in their examination of the North
American business textbook, demonstrate an almost total neglect of the socio-political
context in which management theory is discussed. Following on this line, Cooke, Mills,
and Kelley (Cooke et al., 2005; Mills et al., 2002) have explored the relationship between
socio-political context – namely the Cold War – and the development of management
theory. Cooke (1999) has also revealed how, in the ahistorical processes of presenting
and disseminating management thought leftwing ideas have been “written out”.
Management Decision
Vol. 43 No. 10, 2005
pp. 1375-1395
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0025-1747
DOI 10.1108/00251740510634921
MD
43,10
1376
In this paper we build on that collective work in two ways. First, we attempt to
show how a steady filtering of management theory and of the selection and work of
management theorists lends itself to the narrowly focused, managerialist, and
functionalist perspective that Burrell and Morgan (1979) held up to review some 25
years ago. Second, following Cooke (1999), we attempt to show how not only leftwing
ideas, but also even the rich complexity of mainstream ideas has been written out of
most management accounts. We explore these points through an examination of the
treatment of Abraham Maslow in management texts over time.
Our conclusion is a simple one. Management theory – whether mainstream or
critical – does a disservice to the potential of the field where it oversimplifies to a point
where a given theory or theorist is misread because sufficient context, history, and
reflection are missing from the presentation/dissemination.
Why Maslow?
Certainly we could have taken a number of management theorists or theories to
illustrate our central theme of the importance of reading in context. Kurt Lewin is one
obvious example. Despite Lewin’s significant contribution to management theory
(Cooke, 1999; Marrow, 1969; Mills et al., 2002) his work is often reduced to little more
than a simple line-drawing illustrating “unfreezing-changing-refreezing” as a process
of organizational change. On occasion a business textbook will reference Lewin’s work
with groups of boys on leadership (Lewin et al., 1939), before the textbook moves on to
more “advanced” theories. The young business student could hardly be blamed for
assuming that Lewin was indeed a facile and outmoded thinker. And what about Max
Weber? If anything, Weber has fared worse than most. Not only has his work all but
disappeared from recent textbooks, but also when it does appear he is more often than
not presented quite inappropriately as the inventor and/or prophet of bureaucracy,
rather than its sociological detractor (see, for example, Lamond, 1990). Beyond Lewin
and Weber there are many theorists that we could have chosen to exemplify our
argument. We have chosen Maslow because of the continued and widespread interest
in his work. As we indicate below, Maslow’s work continues to inform a vast range of
business problems from customer relations management (CRM) to motivation. We
have also chosen Maslow because of the range and complexity of his work and the
limited extent to which that is explored in management and organizational theory.
It should be said that our focus on Maslow is also an outcome of pre-existing choices
that have been made by numerous management theorists who selected Maslow’s work
above that of many other theorists in the field. This raises the interesting question of
how do certain theories or theorists get selected to occupy the stage of worthy
management subjects? That is a paper in itself. A recent survey of North American
business textbooks found that certain theories (such as equity theory, total quality
management, and business process reengineering) were highlighted in the business
textbook almost immediately after the initial research was introduced in the
management literature, while others (particularly selected feminist theories/theorists)
were either completely ignored or took several years to get cited in the mainstream
business textbook: Acker and van Houten’s (1974) gendered analysis of the Hawthorne
Studies, for example, despite its publication in the Administrative Science Quarterly,
was virtually ignored by the business textbook for close to 25 years (Mills, 2004).
As far as we can ascertain at this stage, Maslow appears to have been introduced to
the business textbook in North America by Davis (1957). Davis, who was to become
President of the Academy of Management (AoM) in 1964, refers to Maslow’s work in a
chapter on the “Mainsprings of motivation”. Under the heading “Priority of needs”,
Davis (1957, p. 40) states:
Maslow: man
interrupted
Psychologists recognise that needs have a certain priority. As the more basic needs are
satisfied, a person then seeks the higher needs. If his basic needs are not met, they claim
priority, and efforts to satisfy the higher needs must be postponed. A need priority of five
levels is established by A. H. Maslow. These needs are:
1. Basic physiological needs
2. Safety from external danger
3. Love, affection and social activity
4. Esteem and self-respect
5. Self-realization and accomplishment.
1377
In the 1957 edition Davis only references Maslow’s (1943) paper on “A theory of human
motivation”. In subsequent editions Davis (1967) also references Maslow’s (1954) book
on Motivation and Personality.
Interestingly, when Ralph C. Davis (the 1948 AoM President) and Allan C. Filley
(Davis and Filley, 1963) refer to Maslow’s needs theory, they draw from Keith Davis’
work and position Maslow as someone who informs the work of Keith Davis. In a
discussion of “Executive Leadership”, Davis and Filley (1963, p. 61) argue that leaders
have to take account of the fact that “human beings have a priority of needs which they
seek to satisfy on the job and off. This priority of needs, as reported by Keith Davis [is]
based on psychological research by A. H. Maslow . . . ”
In contrast to later representations of Maslow’s work by other management
theorists (including Keith Davis), Davis and Filley (1963) comment:
While the exact order of priority may vary somewhat between persons, the above catalogue
of needs represents the normal order of priority for most people.
This is far from the notion of a “hierarchy” of “needs”. Neither Keith Davis (1957) nor
Ralph Davis (Davis and Filley, 1963) refer to “self actualization” as the highest order
need.
A man and his triangle: the enigma that is Maslow
It is clear from various accounts of Maslow that his work was very complex and can be
read in a number of ways. Certainly he was a complex thinker. He garnered early
interest from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for signing an open appeal to
the “Platform Committee of the Republican and Democratic Parties” of 1952 to repeal
the Internal Security (McCarran) Act that effectively made the Communist Party and
any government-designated “communist front” organizations illegal (Federal Bureau
of Investigation, 1954-1968). On the other hand, Maslow was also found in the forefront
of those condemning anti-war demonstrators during the Vietnam War: Maslow argued
that the anti-war demonstrators should be locked up and the key thrown away (Cooke
et al., 2005).
In terms of gender politics Friedan (1963) devotes over 14 pages to Maslow’s
“thought provoking” theories of sexuality in her now classic feminist work, The
Feminine Mystique. The feminist analysis of Maslow’s work by Cullen (1992, 1997), on
MD
43,10
1378
the other hand, finds his work deeply gendered and dismissive of women. Furthermore,
while Maslow was concerned that his theories make a broad contribution to
humankind there is more than enough evidence that he was happy to lend himself to
management concerns with productivity through motivational manipulations
(Hoffman, 1988).
A sampling of Maslow’s work reveals an interest in learning, dominance, sexual
behavior, hierarchy in pairs and in groups, psychic illness, leadership and personality,
self-esteem, destructiveness, intelligence, holistic thinking, psychological needs,
self-actualization, motivation, aesthetics, power relationships, personal development,
creativity, human nature, culture, and “humanistic education” (for an extensive list of
Maslow’s publications see Hoffman (1988, pp. 343-8)). All of these issues have much to
tell us about organizational behavior yet it is Maslow’s work on motivation, and only a
small part at that, which has made its way into business education by way of the
textbook.
In the next sections of the paper we will review selected areas of Maslow’s work and
thinking to reveal the complexity of his research and the implications for
organizational analysis.
Reading Maslow
Abraham Maslow was a psychologist who, over a number of years, developed and refined a
general theory of human motivation. According to Maslow, humans have five sets of needs
that are arranged in a hierarchy, beginning with the most basic and compelling needs (Johns
and Saks, 2005, p. 139).
Surveying 120 of the most widely used organizational behavior textbooks used in
North American universities in the last 25 years we find that most contain a paragraph
much like the one written above. In essence, textbook production has reduced more
than 50 years of Maslow’s scholarly research and writing to one simple theory of
motivation. The received view of Maslow has become embodied in his popular and
widely known hierarchy of needs as represented by an innocuous triangle, which has
been reproduced near mindlessly by scholars, educators and practitioners over the last
50 years. This tradition of use continues in our educational practices to this day (Johns
and Saks, 2005; McShane, 2004; Robbins and Langton, 2003). Indeed, as Cullen (1997,
pp. 355-6) expands, Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs is ubiquitous in management
education and theory [and is . . .] so pervasive that it has almost become invisible”.
The ubiquity of the triangle
Undoubtedly, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, as depicted by a small triangle, is the piece
of work most often attributed to him. When asking a group of students or practitioners
to identify a theory of motivation, one is hard pressed to find an answer other than the
hierarchy of needs. Korman (1974, p. 248) attributes the popularity of Maslow’s
Hierarchy to the “times” (e.g. 1960s), the humanistic, self-actualization thrust in
psychology, and the “almost intuitive common-sense approach” proffered by the
triangle. Others attribute the popularity and wide acceptance of Maslow’s Hierarchy of
Needs to the fact that it “substantially reflects realities in the business world”
(McFarland, 1964, p.524) or its apparent “face-validity” from the practitioner’s
perspective (Rausch et al., 2002).
The use of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs pervades an incredibly wide range of
literatures. In a veritable smorgasbord of representation, it is found in the journals of
almost all of the social disciplines, in the media and popular press, and in the trade and
practitioner magazines. Maslow’s hierarchy has been adapted and incorporated in to a
broad range of theoretical or practical applications and the scope and scale of the
hierarchy’s use and application covers an amazingly wide range of topics.
A cursory review of the latest academic and practitioner publications reveals its use
to guide the implementation of CRM systems (Gentle, 2003) or to explain why money is
an insufficient motivating tool for information systems (IS) professionals (Santosus,
2004). It is being used to support various managerial perspectives for change (Lucey
et al., 2004), or to explain why industrial societies have ceased to use certain
manufacturing and materials practices (Luke, 2004). It is a theory used to explicate the
potential results of shifting immigrant demographics and the subsequent impact on a
nation’s workforce culture (Nicholson-Lord, 2004), or to theoretically distinguish
between cultural populations in psychological studies (Kickul et al., 2004) and
motivational differences (Kuo and Chen, 2004). It has been used as a heuristic for the
comparison of the main streams of literature concerning corporate reputation (Berens
and von Riel, 2004), or even in an attempt to lower recidivism in convicted felons (Jones,
2004). In marketing, it has been used to define customer needs (Ritson, 2004), or to
segment individuals based on those needs (Pincus, 2004), as well as to explain the
mechanics of motivation of CEOs, senior management and directors of firms (Senter,
2004). It has been used to support views on ethical and moral development (Huang,
2004), and as a practitioner heuristic, advocated by consultants, for the facilitation of
the motivation of employees from a specific generation, so-called Gen Y workers (HR
Focus, 2004). It has even been applied in support of health care strategy (Bardwell,
2004). The peculiarity of this situation is that despite the undeniable popularity of the
“triangle”, research demonstrated a lack of empirical support for Maslow’s Hierarchy
as early as 1973 (Miner and Daschler, 1973). The little empirical support there is for
Maslow’s hierarchy has been found when one of the hierarchical elements is tested and
found to be a moderating influence on another variable of interest (Fried et al., 2003;
Hagerty, 1999).
The validity and use of Maslow’s hierarchy remains a contentious issue even within
the discipline of psychology, pitting the social against the experimental, with critics
arguing that Maslow’s theory is non-testable and, given the lack of empirical
validation, is therefore pseudo scientific (Corning, 2000). Wahba and Bridwell (1973,
p. 514) emphasize this Maslowian paradox in that “The theory is widely accepted, but
there is little research evidence to support it” and note that “It has become a tradition
for writers to point out the discrepancy between the popularity of the theory and the
lack of clear and consistent empirical evidence to support it”. This tradition of
“use-despite-verification” continues to this day in our major organizational texts (Johns
and Saks, 2005; McShane, 2004; Robbins and Langton, 2003). Ironically, almost four
decades earlier Maslow confided in his journals that he was concerned by the
“over-extensive use in business of [his] theories and findings” which, he felt were
“being taken as gospel truth, without any real examination of their reliability, validity”.
To correct this jaundiced view of his work he made a note to himself to “publish the
critiques of [self actualization] SA and also of [his] motivation theory” (Lowry, 1979,
p. 189).
Maslow: man
interrupted
1379
MD
43,10
1380
Similarly, Maslow himself supported the notion of revisiting and testing his theory
of motivation, “Then the question comes up again: why don’t people replicate, e.g. the
SA research? They spend so much time on so much crap. Why not some time on
something critically important? I just don’t understand it. My motivation theory was
published 20 years ago and in all that time nobody repeated it, or tested it, or really
analyzed it or criticized it. They just used it, swallowed it whole with only the most
minor modifications” (Lowry, 1979, p. 190). After his death, there has been a growth in
the extent to which Maslow’s needs theory has been uncritically adopted at the same
time as the growth in dismissals of Maslow’s work as lacking empirical support.
In the remainder of this paper we will explore Maslow’s work through the reading of
his journals and will attempt to hear the rest of the conversation, as if it had not been
interrupted. It will also situate his research within time and space, thus providing some
much-needed context. Finally, the paper will demonstrate that the continued reliance
on theories constructed within this particular time and space are oblivious to the needs
of certain groups. If we are to truly understand organizations, we must listen to all the
voices within them.
Beyond the triangle
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs was merely a stepping-stone in the grand scheme of his
work. Contrary to the prominence given to it in mainstream management theory,
Maslow never felt that the “triangle” was his great contribution. Instead, the five needs
listed in the hierarchy that we see today were merely used to identify needs for what
Maslow deemed “unhealthy people”. The needs listed were considered lower level
needs and their fulfillment was required in order for individuals to become
psychologically “healthy”. In opposition to much of the research of the day, Maslow
was mainly concerned with studying “healthy” individuals – those who had reached,
what he termed, self-actualization. It was the study of those who had achieved
self-actualization that really energised Maslow and it was here that he felt his real
contribution could be made. As stated by Hoffman (1988, p. 275), “developing his
theory of metapsychology, focusing on our highest needs and aspirations, became
increasingly important to Maslow”. Maslow wrote that there were two kinds of
self-actualizing people – “transcenders” and “merely healthy”. In his paper, “Theory Z”
(in Bennis and Schein, 1969), he spent considerable time differentiating between the
two and positing testable hypotheses.
Unfortunately, textbook dissemination of Maslow’s work has universally ignored
this subsequent work which focuses on higher level needs and continues to perpetuate
the use of a theory designed to move people a mentally unhealthy state to a healthy
one. This has implications for organizational analysis. It suggests that management
theorists and practitioners alike need to take into account that the desired state of
psychological wellbeing is self-actualization. If that is the case then merely appealing
to different levels of the needs hierarchy to motivate employees to greater performance
may actually perpetuate rather than address a lack of psychological wellbeing: the
continued focus on lower level needs may only serve to reinforce them and stifle
growth into higher level need arenas. Arguably, management theory has, until now,
ignored potentially truly great contributions that focus on the psychological welfare of
people rather than the production outcomes of motivation. Much of the management
literature has also overlooked what Maslow deemed to be other significant need
categories – dominance, sexuality, knowledge and enquiry.
Dominance and sexuality. Much of Maslow’s early work was conducted on
dominance and provides some basic clues to “the potential relationship between
organizations and dominance”(Mills et al., 2005, p. 135). Maslow not only believed that
“dominance” was a key element of social relationships, but also that it was a vital
determinant of social behavior and organizations (Hoffman, 1988, pp. 69-70). His
research suggested that people develop different dominant needs, with some who are
driven to dominate and others who feel the need to be dominated. Apart from where
Maslow linked dominance to sexuality (see below) this area of work proved of little
interest to management theorists. That is perhaps not surprising given the potentially
uncomfortable insights that could have been generated into the impact of dominance
relationships and organizational behavior (Mills et al., 2005, p. 135).
Outside of management theory Friedan (1963) attempted to revive interest in
Maslow’s work on dominance. In particular Friedan was impressed by Maslow’s
argument that so-called “high dominance” women were more like “high dominance”
men then “low dominance” women (Mills et al., 2005, p. 133). Maslow, in fact, claimed
that his notion of self-actualization consisted of an amalgam of masculine and feminine
features. Although fundamentally essentialist in his views of gender Maslow
nonetheless suggests in his work that dominance needs may be to some extent socially
influenced by cultural factors, arguing that “our conception of the universe, of science,
of intelligence [and] of emotion are lopsided and partial because they are constructed
by man” (quoted in Hoffman, 1988, pp. 234-5). Indeed, Maslow went on to state that: “If
only women were allowed to be full human beings, thereby making it possible for men
to be fully human” western culture might finally generate a balanced, rather than a
male, approach “to philosophy, art, science” (quoted in Hoffman, 1988, pp. 234-5).
Regrettably this viewpoint was contained in a letter to a friend where Maslow confided
that he felt unable “to get up courage enough to write anything on the subject” of
women and culture (quoted in Hoffman, 1988). We can only guess at the impact of
Maslow’s work on dominance and sexuality if he had had the courage to revise and
develop it, or if others had expanded on his work. We can suggest, however, that it may
have lent an important air of legitimacy to gender research at a time when it was
completely ignored by management studies (Hearn and Parkin, 1983). Certainly it may
have contributed to emerging feminist work on the impact of sexuality and dominance
in the workplace (Acker and van Houten, 1974; Collinson, 1988; Gutek, 1985; Pollert,
1981). There is little doubt, as we shall demonstrate later, that a good part of the reason
that Maslow failed to gain the requisite courage was due to his own discriminatory
views of women and their abilities.
A need to know! In his now famous A Theory of Human Motivation, Maslow (1943)
also introduces the need to know and to understand. He posits another hierarchy built
up of prepotent needs such as the desire to know and the desire to understand. His
work suggests that we have a need for freedom of enquiry and expression, and a need
to know – “a need for curiosity, learning, philosophizing, experimenting and
exploring” (Mills et al., 2005, p. 134). He proposes an overlap between this hierarchy
and the hierarchy of basic needs. Further, Maslow introduces another need – “an
inborn need to experience and express aesthetic emotions” (Hoffman, 1988). It is not
clear where these needs fit in regards to the “triangle” but it is suggested that these
Maslow: man
interrupted
1381
MD
43,10
1382
needs are of higher order and exists above the commonly accepted, five-stage
hierarchy. More fully disseminated and explored these needs could have encouraged a
broader and earlier questioning of workplace learning, aesthetics, and the impact of
organization on human development.
While subsequent works by Maslow were well received at the time much of the
content seems to have been lost since then. For example, after completing Motivation
and Personality (Maslow, 1954), which propelled him into mainstream psychology,
Maslow was extremely proud and felt that “he had written one of the most important
works in the history of psychology” (Hoffman, 1988, p. 205). It was here that Maslow
boldly proposed a positive approach to psychology – i.e. study beyond the hierarchy –
but this work is hardly noted in the recounting of his contribution. Eupsychian
Management (Maslow, 1965) brought Maslow:
[. . .] immediate attention among the leaders of America’s business schools. Many in the
management field viewed it as his most important book to date, providing concrete
recommendations specific to his compelling theories of human nature. His novel concepts
concerning employee motivation, ‘human assets’ accounting, the psychology of
entrepreneuring and leadership, and especially, synergy exerted tremendous influence as
they reached a receptive generation of managerial theorists and organizational consultants in
the 1960s (Hoffman, 1988, p. 285).
It seems that, while Maslow’s work could have provided various significant insights to
management theory, much of it seems to have been lost. The remainder of the paper
will examine these “lost” contributions, as identified through his personal journals.
Humanist psychology
The placement and framing of Maslow in contemporary management or OB texts leads
many to wrongly conclude that his motivation theory is simply a managerialist tool
(Mills et al., 2005), enabling managers to better determine the nature, and handling, of
the appropriate carrot to be offered to employees. In essence, business students are
taught that managers who understand their employees’ motivations (i.e. where they
fall on the hierarchy of needs) will be better able to influence the motivation of those
employees, thus improving the productivity of the organization. Satisfied workers
merely happen to be a by-product.
A deeper reading of Maslow, incorporating his own thoughts as reflected in his
journals, sheds new light on the intent of the author. Maslow felt a great need to make a
difference in society. He contends that, from his early graduate years, he was
“determined to write a big introduction to psychology that would do some good for
mankind” (Lowry, 1979, p. 331). It was not his intention to create a tool for the
subjugation and control of employees. In fact, he saw the hierarchy as a path to
“enlightenment” for individuals and felt that organizations should attempt to create
spaces for employees that were conducive to achievement of self actualization, the top
of the well-known pyramid.
Maslow believed that man (sic) has “within his nature a yearning for truth, beauty,
goodness, justice, order, humour, completion, etc . . . but this emerges only as lower
basic needs are satisfied” (Lowry, 1979, p. 148). Accordingly, Maslow saw his
hierarchy of needs as a path to these values (labeled “B values”):
Thus this striving (all striving, any striving) is the same as the urge to complete oneself, to be,
to become fully human, to be a whole, satisfied, unitary, complete, final, perfect thing rather
than just an incomplete, unfinished piece or part of something. This is to be fulfilled,
actualized, instead of potential or promise. This is the contrast between motivated (stirring,
restless, incomplete, satisfied, unsatisfied, becoming, trying, effortful, unsatisfactory,
imperfect) and unmotivated (metamotivated, resting, satisfied, fulfilled, perfect, final,
complete, etc.) (Lowry, 1979, p. 141).
He envisioned a Utopia, which he called “Eupsychia”, where society, as well as the
organizations within them, encouraged the growth and self-actualization of all
individuals. This, in turn, would lead to the internalization of B values, and a pride in
one’s work that would cause the eradication of faulty products and poor services.
Because of the value placed on truth, beauty, goodness, etc., “bad” values would be
minimized. This vision of Utopia was evident throughout his work in the 1950s, 1960s,
and 1970s, and served as the basis for much of his theorizing.
Maslow believed that man could be emancipated through consciousness-raising and
self-actualization. This, in turn, had an activating effect where, “lifting the individual’s
repression leads him to become a Eupsychian force – and this is already adding up to a
social force toward Eupsychia, even if not very powerful yet” (Lowry, 1979, p. 269).
Lifting individual repression would, in effect, serve to activate societal changes. He
acknowledged his theoretical placement between Freud and Marx. He agreed with
Freud’s contention “that man can overcome repression without social changes. (Yes, he
can!)” (quoted in Lowry, 1979), and that society “only influences [man’s] being by
greater or lesser repression of his innate biology.” (quoting directly from Fromm, 1962
in Lowry, 1979, p. 269). Nonetheless, again drawing on the words of Fromm (1962,
quoted in Lowry, 1979, p. 269), Maslow states approvingly that:
Marx on the other hand was the first thinker who saw that the (widespread) realization of the
universal and fully awakened man can occur only together with social changes which lead to
a new and truly human economic and social organization of mankind.
Thus, Maslow (quoted in Lowry, 1979, p. 269) concludes:
You need a fully awakened man to know which social changes to make, which direction to go
in, how to do it, how to translate the (purely) institutional change into human (SA) terms . . .
The process of social and individual betterment must go on simultaneously as a single
process.
Maslow’s use of Freud, his self-identification with the work of Marx, and his emphasis
on consciousness-raising are not consistent with the positivistic, managerialist vein
within which he has been portrayed. It may be more insightful to note the overlapping
of his theories across different epistemological and ontological positions. For instance,
his emphasis on consciousness-raising in attempts at human liberation plays to radical
humanism over positivism. As does his desire to create a level playing field for all by
levying a huge inheritance tax to ensure that no one is born into privilege. He also saw
the provision of equal-opportunity healthcare and education for all – to ensure that all
individuals are given equal opportunities to self-actualize. On the other hand, his focus
on improvements within the existing ownership structure of the workplace speaks
more to functionalist concerns. Despite the wide ontological and epistemological
frames within which Maslow’s broader work may be situated, his corpus has been
Maslow: man
interrupted
1383
MD
43,10
1384
effectively reduced to one that embodies the mainstream managerialist
conceptualization of motivation as embodied in his five-stage hierarchy of needs.
Culture
When perusing the typical OB text, we rarely see the presentation of Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs within a greater context. It is usually presented in a positivistic,
prescriptive manner, with little regard for characteristics of the individual’s external
environment. This has left Maslow’s work open to two forms of problem. On the one
hand, his work is presented as if lack of context was embedded in his work. This
encourages the view that Maslow’s needs theory is a narrowly focused psychological
perspective that ignores socio-psychological and sociological context. On the other
hand, this has led some to critique Maslow’s work as reflective of a male-oriented
western viewpoint of human behavior (Cullen, 1992, 1997), whose application is
problematic outside of the North American context (Raymond et al., 2003). These
criticisms are not entirely deserved, particularly in the claim that he ignored the
sociological context.
Maslow understood that his theory was only useful when culture was considered.
He acknowledged that the nature of human needs, the bases of his theory, were both
biologically determined and socially constructed (Maslow, 1943). However, the
presentation of his work in most texts seems to overlook this. Reflecting in his diary on
his needs theory Maslow (quoted in Lowry, 1979, p. 373, our emphasis) writes:
Need level (which ¼ frustration level) determines which are the most pressing values, what is
yearned for, definition of Utopia, etc. For the one who needs safety or love, that is the most
important thing in the world and SA is not important. But need level is to a large extent (how
large?) determined by culture . . . The higher the culture, the more “secure” or healthy it is, and
the higher the need level. Thus the satisfaction or frustration of ‘instinctoid needs’ rests on
level of culture, on other people, on status of parents, etc. To this extent, ideologies,
philosophies, yearnings, Utopias, rest on level of the culture.
In a similar vein, Maslow grappled with the cultural relevance of the hierarchy. In the
1930s he embraced the notion that “every culture is unique, all values and mores are
relative, and no culture therefore can judge as better its own values, much less seek to
impose them upon another culture” (Hoffman, 1988, p. 113). It is perhaps ironic, given
his statement of cultural uniqueness and the fact that his later work did lend itself to an
ethnocentric view of the world; one of Maslow’s earliest projects praised the culture of
the Blackfoot Indians as being superior to western culture. Maslow associated the
Blackfoot emphasis on generosity with the high levels of “emotional security” that he
found among the members of the tribe. In direct contrast to the Blackfoot he concluded
that competitiveness within American culture was harmful.
Nonetheless, Maslow struggled with the concept of cultural relevance, sometimes
stating that the hierarchy was applicable across all cultures while at other times
stating that the culture of origin greatly affected the applicability of the model. In 1959,
he wrote the following in an unpublished paper: “So far, I have been studying
self-actualization via autonomy, as if it were the only path. But this is quite Western,
and even American” (Hoffman, 1988, p. 243), perhaps settling his struggle with the
cultural relativism of his theory once and for all. The very least we can conclude is that
Maslow had at least reflected on the ethnocentric roots of his psychology and lamented
the fact that the reflection was confined to an unpublished paper. He did not, however,
divorce his needs theory from the broader context and had that been more fully
represented in the literature it may have broadened the debate on the relationship
between psychological welfare and organizational context.
Leadership
One of Maslow’s greatest concerns, as they appear in his journals, seems to be the
“valueless-ness” of society. He conceptualizes this valueless-ness as “uncertainty” and
he blames this on “the absences of adult standards because the adults are (1) s***s and
not admirable; and (2) confused and with no fixed values to offer, only phoney ones
that they hardly believe in themselves” (Lowry, 1979, p. 128). Maslow concludes that:
(1) most people don’t have a will, an identity, a self; (2) they are therefore uncertain about
everything – they have no real opinions or judgements; (3) therefore they are easily
convinced by anyone who is decisive, sure of himself, without doubt; (4) anyway, all people,
especially uncertain ones, are looking for certainty, and since they can’t get it from within,
they’ll get it from without; (5) they will follow any decisive leader, true of false, and feel better
thereby; (6) paranoids (obsessionals) are ‘certain’ for safety-need reasons and therefore look
decisive, strong-willed, etc., in their behaviour (Lowry, 1979, p. 375).
His theory is that leaders emerge because of their apparent decisiveness. This theory
stems from his work with primates, during his dissertations years. During this time, he
determined that the uncertain monkeys always appeared to follow the certain ones –
the ones that portrayed an image of certainness and confidence, “The dominant
monkey was sure of himself. So is the dominant man. And in a world of unsure people,
they all turn to him for answers” (Lowry, 1979, p. 24).
He uses this theory to explain why people follow perceived leaders, regardless of the
consequences:
[. . .] my original thesis was that most people are so uncertain about their wishes, judgements,
etc., that they follow anyone who is decisive, sure of himself. And since this decisiveness can
come from paranoia, that’s why Hitler, Stalin, McCarthy et al. were followed. (It’s not a taste
for evil; it’s a taste for certainty) (Lowry, 1979, p. 357).
However, he also acknowledges:
[. . .] many leaders who are decisive, unwavering, sure of themselves are not paranoid (e.g.
Freud), because of their profound confidence in themselves and in the truth of what they’ve
seen. The good captain, the good father, must be like this so as to reassure the panicky ones,
the waiverers (Lowry, 1979, p. 133).
Maslow’s thinking on leadership is interesting from a number of perspectives. To
begin with, it can be argued that the appearance of these ideas in Maslow’s 1930s work
on primates reflects more general concerns with the rise of fascism and Nazism and the
leader-follower research being pursued by the Frankfurt School (Held, 1980). In a
similar way Lewin’s work on leadership not only reflected the political theorizing of the
time, but also became embedded in his theoretical categories of democratic, autocratic,
and laissez-faire leadership styles (Mills et al., 2002). More problematic is the élitism
embedded in Maslow’s viewpoint, an élitism that, as been noted elsewhere (Cooke et al.,
2005), is the cornerstone of his notion of a “hierarchy” of needs. Also problematic is the
gendered notions that inform Maslow’s views of leadership (e.g. the “good father”)
(Cullen, 1992). Despite the problems Maslow does raise some interesting issues about
Maslow: man
interrupted
1385
MD
43,10
1386
the link between values, certainty and leadership that may provide useful insights with
further research.
Psychotherapy
The benefits of psychotherapy are emphasized in Maslow’s journals. Given his
occupation, this is not surprising. However, what is of particular interest is Maslow’s
application of psychotherapy in the quest to achieve self-actualization (SA). Not only
does he recommend that psychotherapy be used for achievement of SA, but that it be
used in preparation of the journey toward SA, as psychotherapy “prepares
(individuals) for positive self-transformation techniques of all kinds” (Lowry, 1979,
p. 459).
Also of interest is Maslow’s recommendation that group psychotherapy be used
within his own academic department at the university where he is employed. He
recognizes the value of psychotherapy in organizations. This was a relatively novel
idea and could be considered to have been ahead of its time.
Since Maslow, there has been a resurgence of interest in using psychotherapy in
organizations. Kets de Vries (1978) noted the need for counseling within organizations.
Later, Chiaramonte and Mills (1993) identified the need for self-reflection counseling as
an instrument for organizational learning, and argued that self-reflection is a vital skill
for managers to possess. They recognized that self-reflection allowed people in
organizations to think over their experiences, assumptions, and beliefs about work,
thus gaining valuable insights and contributing to the organization. Schein (in Quick
and Kets de Vries, 2000) also supported the use of psychotherapy in organizations and
hailed the benefits of self-reflection. Gustavsen (2001, p. 374) recommended that
introspection and meditation be used “not only as phenomenological research methods,
but also as instruments of transcendent change”. Lowe et al. (2002) also argued that
psychoanalysis could prove to be a valuable tool for the understanding of the
gendering of organizations. Despite this recognition, the application of psychoanalysis
in organizations appears to be in its infancy, and few researchers, if any, have provided
a clear picture of what this might look like. Most recently, application of Hubert
Hermans’ Self Confrontation Method (Hermans et al., 1990) has been proposed as a
psychoanalytic tool which might be appropriately used in organizations (Bissonnette
and Mills, 2002; Dye and Mills, 2004, 2002; Weatherbee and Mills, 2002). This too, is in
its infancy and may have perhaps have opened up as an avenue of research at an early
stage had this aspect of Maslow’s thinking been engaged with in the management
literature.
The meaning of work
Maslow recognized the relationship between work and self-esteem:
If work is introjected into the self (I guess it always is, more or less, even when one tries not
to), then the relation between self-esteem and work is closer than I had thought. Especially
healthy, stable self-esteem (feeling of worth, pride, influence, importance, etc.) rests on good,
worthy work to be integrated into, thereby becoming part of self. Maybe more of the
contemporary malaise is due to the introjection of non-prideful, robotized,
broken-down-into-easy-bits kind of work than I had thought (Lowry, 1979, p. 187).
Maslow asserted that man (sic.) needs meaningful work in order to self actualize and
suggests that Henry-Ford-style assembly-line types of organization fail to provide this
as:
Maslow: man
interrupted
[. . .] the whole man is not needed – just his hands, or a particular, easily learned, partial skill;
the job is broken down into parts and bits not needing highly trained people; judgement,
taste, idiosyncrasy, connoisseurship, professionalism, autonomy, pride – all these are
minimized. It leads towards an entrepreneur or manager sitting in an office planning for a
large organization of ad hoc trained, unskilled, interchangeable, autonomous people (Lowry,
1979, p. 402).
1387
In contrast to this stark vision of industrial organization, Maslow argues:
If you take into yourself something important from the world, then you become important.
You have made yourself important thereby – as important as that which you have integrated
and assimilated to self. At once it matters if you die, or are sick and can’t work, etc. (Lowry,
1979, p. 185).
He also contends that:
[. . .] our “organizational world”, as we have come to know it (mechanistic, specialized, etc.)
keeps us from self-actualization and asserts that, reliance on statistics and other external
cues, like timetables, schedules, etc., can serve in the extreme as a substitute for inner voices,
inner decisions, certainties. That is, some people don’t get an inner voice to eat or sleep or
urinate and look at the clock instead to know whether or not they should eat (Lowry, 1979,
p. 508).
Individuals become dependent on external cues, ignore or never develop their inner
voices, and become uncertain and unable to make decisions on their own. This is
precisely, according to Maslow, what leads individuals to seek those who are certain, to
seek leadership from others. Here we see an important nod in the direction of a more
humanist version of motivation and the problems for industrial civilization.
Organizational change
Maslow also recognized that change would become inevitable in organizations, stating
that:
We must learn to live with perpetual change and with practically no stability, tradition, etc.
and it must remain so, or even with faster rate of change (Lowry, 1979, p. 16).
For Maslow, this era of rapid change required, “not an improved man but an entirely
different kind of man, the creative and flexible one who, in the midst of rapid and
perpetual change, can be a person and not just an adapter” (Lowry, 1979, p. 16). This
new “man” would be, “flexible, creative, not relying on any traditions, or on routine or
habit or any other way of life learned from past and based on assumption of this past
continuing on into future. The future must be unknown, and the new man would have
to stop needing stability, order, routine” (Lowry, 1979, p. 16).
This theory of change is not unlike the Tom Peters’ (1992, 1994) version of change
that was popularized in the 1980s and 1990s. The emphasis on inevitable change and
the required change in the mindset of personnel sounds all too familiar. But it could
also be argued that this presaged the advent of interest in organizational learning and
the learning organization (Bratton et al., 2004). In this regard, Maslow raises an
interesting point when discussing the period of rapid change. He asks: “If the future is
MD
43,10
not like the past, what is the good of specialization or professional training?” (Lowry,
1979, p. 17). Intuitively, this seems a logical question. He further identifies the
implications of this on education and training by asking, “What must education be like
to produce the creative man? What good are facts, rote memory” (Lowry, 1979, p. 17).
According to Maslow (Lowry, 1979, p. 17), we need “creative education” to help create
this new flexible, creative man who thrives on perpetual change.
1388
Maslow and gendered organization theory
In the words of Fondas (1997, p. 257), “Management theorizing is not gender neutral”.
As we have seen above, Maslow’s work was applauded by Betty Fiedan for
recognizing that the highest state of being (self-actualization) consisted of masculine
and feminine characteristics. And that he seems to have believed that women’s ability
to reach a higher state of being was influenced by male-dominated views of social life.
We have also seen that his work has been characterized by feminists as informed by
deeply held gendered views (Cullen, 1997). Maslow’s diary entries indicate that, if
anything, Cullen (1997), may have underestimated the degree to which Maslow’s idea
of the world was rooted in gendered thinking but the diaries also reveal that Maslow
was conflicted on the role of women in society, believing more that gender was
biologically determined rather than socially constructed.
Although his motivation theory claims to have evolved from a study where he
interviewed women about their sexual habits, Maslow’s conception of “women” was
relatively shallow and the link between their sexual habits and motivation theory is
never made clear. What he did conclude from his work on sexuality and dominance
was that “‘normal’ sexual happiness can occur in society only when the male plays the
dominant role” (French, 1985, pp. 524-5). In the Farther Reaches of Human Nature
Maslow contends, “none of his points applied to women and he did not know what did”
(French, 1985, p. 376).
Maslow seems to have believed that “gender” was the equivalent to “sex”, and
therefore, biologically determined. In his diaries he articulates, unabashedly, his belief
about where women fit in society, and rarely is this fit suggested to be in an
organization (as was indicative of the era). For example, he states that a woman who
self-actualizes becomes stronger and that “the woman’s strength and forcefulness are
quite compatible with being a good wife, even a better wife than otherwise” (Lowry,
1979, p. 139). Similarly, when discussing a colleague, Maslow writes, “I like Horney as
far as she goes, but I don’t think of her as a systematic thinker. She was a clinician
primarily and a woman too” (Lowry, 1979, p. 166, our emphasis) – this despite
apparent respect for Horney’s work (Hoffman, 1988). Statements of this nature are
littered throughout Maslow’s journals. Perhaps his most misogynous viewpoint is
expressed where he argues:
Women don’t have to explore as men do, to look under every rock, climb every mountain, take
clocks apart to see how they work. They don’t have to solve things. Puzzles and riddles don’t
challenge them as much. They don’t have to get into crevices (they are the crevice) (Lowry,
1979, p. 354).
And he is at his most paternalist where he argues that:
Only the woman needs to be loved, first and foremost, and will give up justice, dignity, law
and order, truth, anything to hang on to being loved (Lowry, 1979, p. 251).
Despite these views, Maslow was prepared to argue that Freud’s view of women was
“inaccurate and demeaning; clearly, there was more to female psychology than
procreative anatomy” (Hoffman, 1988, p. 234). According to a letter written to a female
colleague in 1956 (Hoffman, 1988), Maslow felt that women could, in fact, self-actualize
but that their differences, emotional, cognitive, and perceptual, warranted a different
journey toward self-actualization. In this early period, even Maslow recognized that the
hierarchy of needs, constructed by and for man, was not necessarily appropriate or
applicable for women (Hoffman, 1988).
Perhaps Maslow’s perception of women was a symptom of the times, and perhaps
his theory of motivation, developed for the times, was not inappropriate. In fact, it may
have served the era well. However, Maslow’s theory of motivation, that which is most
commonly associated with his name, and is as popular today as it was 30 years ago, is
presented without this important context. For example, textbooks rarely proffer the
fact that the theory is more than 40 years old and was constructed during a time where
the North American workforce consisted mainly of white, Anglo-Saxon men. Should
this be provided, readers would be able to draw their own conclusion about the
applicability of Maslow’s theory to today’s world of work. However, this simply is not
the case.
Since the late 1970s, attempts have been made to “ungender” organization theory
(Grant, 1988). Scholarship within the women’s voice perspective has been promising
and significant strides have been made to hear the voices of women (see Bell and
Nkomo, 1992; Calás and Smircich, 1991; Gilligan, 1982; Grant, 1988; Martin, 1990;
Smircich, 1985). However, by continuing to publish Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
without context, and without theories of motivation representing women’s voice to
balance the picture, we are merely perpetuating the genderedness of organization
theory, and the silencing of voices. We may have a better understanding of the causes
of gendered theories of management where we attempt to understand them in context.
Theorizing the other
Women’s voices are not the only ones to be silenced by the continued presentation of
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, without context and counterbalancing theories. The
voices of gay men and blacks are also visibly suppressed. On the topic of gay men,
Maslow states: “the man who prefers an uncomfortable shoe for his foot is biologically
wrong. There are biological suitabilities” (Lowry, 1979, p. 187). He goes on to explain
this more graphically. In essence, he is stating that gay men are “biologically wrong”
and therefore, not considered to be of the “normal” range considered in his research.
This is emphasized in his reference to gay men as being in the same category as
criminals and delinquents, “I had thought of using prostitutes and homosexuals to
throw light on dominance-subdominance, but now I think I’d add all criminals and
delinquents” (Lowry, 1979, p. 385). His treatment of different races is similar, as is
evident in the following passage:
Useful thought to work up: thinking about foolish tactics of Negroes and their rioting and
burning, splitting among themselves, childish impatience, blaming everyone else and
demanding manhood instead of developing it themselves, impotence, absence of leadership
(Lowry, 1979, p. 650).
This treatment is consistent throughout Maslow’s journals. Yet we also know that he
had profound respect for the culture of the Blackfoot Indians.
Maslow: man
interrupted
1389
MD
43,10
One must be careful not to “judge” Maslow through today’s lens. In fact, he laments
such ethnocentric behavior throughout his journals. The intent of acknowledging the
voices silenced by Maslow’s theories was not the admonition of his work. It is merely
an attempt to demonstrate the importance of context (time and space) when reading
organization theory. Merely reproducing Maslow’s work, without re-visiting and
re-analyzing is simply too easy and fails to acknowledge the changing face of work.
1390
Conclusion
While organization theorists have been called to account for the history that underpins
their works, the use of historical analysis in pursuit of understanding within
organizational studies remains “extremely rare” (Kieser, 1994). This is viewed as
problematic as more often than not our understanding of organizations is directly
dependant on the work of our academic forbearers as we add links in these
epistemological chains. If our forbearers failed to incorporate history in their works
then what we see and recognize as the accumulated body of knowledge that is
organizational theory potentially hangs suspended from a structure that is far weaker
than we believe – with the strength and temper of each link varying significantly,
invoking the specter of Damocles. Simply reproducing highly simplified aspects of a
theorist’s work, such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, in each new management or OB
text is doing a disservice to the breadth of debate that is often involved in a corpus of
research work. It may limit a person’s theoretical corpus to a managerialist frame, and
avoid the potential rewards inherent in listening to the multiple voices in organizations.
In the case of Maslow, we have constructed an identity of the man that he may
neither have wanted, nor intended. We have come to identify him with a “rump theory”
that has been misunderstood and misappropriated from the very beginning. The
theory has been taken out of context in numerous textbooks, which have attributed
uninformed goals to the theory, and have basically ignored the potential of work
surrounding the theory. What has been interpreted as a tool of managerial control was
intended, at least to an important degree, as a tool for the emancipation of human kind.
Maslow laments the relative scarcity of humanistic work as he writes: “Why is so little
done with science that would help people or help the society or virtue in general?”
(Lowry, 1979, p. 619) and: “There are so very few people doing humanistic work
(defined as for the benefit of mankind and its improvement)” (Lowry, 1979, p. 620) and
might well be appalled by the interpretation of his well-intended work.
A reading of Maslow’s journals demonstrates quite vividly how time and space
serve to shape organizational theory and herald a call to re-visit so as to determine their
relevance in the current time and space. Finally, by reifying the concept of “Maslow as
needs hierarchy” we miss any and all other contributions that Maslow could
potentially have offered us. Perhaps the following is indicative of what is to come:
All sorts of memories come flooding back about the first perception of each of my works. The
motivation theory read to the psychoanalytic groups – Kardiner, Levy, Rado, Alexander,
French et al. – not a reaction, no comment, no nothing. Now it’s famous. They didn’t see it.
But I did, and I had this profound, stubborn confidence in it . . . Just as I have absolute
confidence in the B-psychology I’m doing now. And in the metamotivation stuff which
everyone will be studying and memorizing and attacking from now on; 25 years from now, it
will be “classical” (Lowry, 1979, p. 151).
While we appear to have missed this 25-year mark, perhaps it is not too late to re-visit
Maslow and to discover some previously overlooked contributions. If nothing else, let
us do it with context in mind for we must be careful not to “interrupt” the speaker, nor
should we attempt to define the person or their contribution by some small subset of
his /her work. We need to move beyond the received view, beyond that conversation
that was interrupted. In a more general sense we conclude that the perception of
mainstream management theory as narrowly focused and managerialist (Burrell and
Morgan, 1979; Clegg and Dunkerley, 1980; Mills et al., 2005) is in small part due to
textbook dissemination of theories and theorists that, in their drive for simplicity, cut
out the complexity of approach. Maslow has served as an exemplar. On its own his
hierarchy of needs can be read as a simple tool for manipulating employee motivation.
If, on the other hand, we had been exposed to Maslow’s corpus of work we would have
been challenged to think about such things as the impact of work on self-esteem; the
relationship between culture, organization, and motivation; the exploitation of
uncertainty and dominance by unscrupulous leaders; and reflection on the contribution
of management to human development. We may also have had an early opportunity to
understand and respond to the gendered and ethnocentric nature of emerging theories
of motivation.
References
Acker, J. and van Houten, D.R. (1974), “Differential recruitment and control: the sex structuring of
organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 152-63.
Bardwell, P.L. (2004), “A challenging road toward a rewarding destination”, Frontiers of Health
Services Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, p. 27.
Bell, E.L. and Nkomo, S. (1992), “Re-visioning women managers’ lives”, in Mills, A.J. and
Tancred, P. (Eds), Gendering Organizational Analysis, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 235-47.
Bennis, W.G. and Schein, E. (1969), New Developments within the Human Side of Enterprise,
McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
Berens, G. and von Riel, C.B.M. (2004), “Corporate associations in the academic literature: three
main streams of thought in the reputation measurement literature”, Corporate Reputation
Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, p. 161.
Bissonnette, A. and Mills, A.J. (2002), “The self confrontation method at work”, Proceedings of the
32nd Annual Atlantic Schools of Business Conference, St Francis Xavier University,
Antigonish, November 7-9, pp. 256-64.
Bratton, J., Helms Mills, J., Pyrch, T. and Sawchuck, P. (2004), Workplace Learning. A Critical
Introduction, Garamond Press, Toronto.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis,
Heinemann, London.
Calás, M.B. and Smircich, L. (1991), “Voicing seduction to silence leadership”, Organizational
Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 567-602.
Chiaramonte, P. and Mills, A.J. (1993), “Counselling self reflection as an instrument in
organizational learning”, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 145-55.
Clegg, S. and Dunkerley, D. (1980), Organization, Class and Control, Routledge & Kegan Paul,
London.
Maslow: man
interrupted
1391
MD
43,10
1392
Collinson, D.L. (1988), “Engineering humour: masculinity, joking and conflict in shopfloor
relations”, Organization Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 181-99.
Cooke, B. (1999), “Writing the left out of management theory: the historiography of the
management of change”, Organization, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 81-105.
Cooke, B., Mills, A.J. and Kelley, E.S. (2005), “Situating Maslow in cold war America:
a recontextualization of management theory”, Group and Organization Management,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 129-52.
Corning, P.A. (2000), “Biological adaptation in human societies: a ‘basic needs’ approach”,
Journal of Bioeconomics, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 41-86.
Cullen, D. (1992), “Sex and gender on the path to feminism and self-actualization”, paper
presented at the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, Quebec.
Cullen, D. (1997), “Maslow, monkeys and motivation theory”, Organization, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 355-73.
Davis, K. (1957), Human Relations in Business, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.
Davis, K. (1967), Human Relations at Work: The Dynamics of Organizational Behavior, 3rd ed.,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.
Davis, R.C. and Filley, A.C. (1963), Principles of Management, Alexander Hamilton Institute, New
York, NY.
Dye, K.E. and Mills, A.J. (2002), “Diversity management through self-confrontation”, Proceedings
of the 32nd Annual Atlantic Schools of Business Conference, St Francis Xavier University,
Antigonish, November 7-9.
Dye, K. and Mills, A.J. (2004), “Psychoanalysis at work: unraveling the gendered organization”,
paper presented at the Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (1954-1968), Subject: Abraham H. Maslow. File Number:
100-HQ-415677, FBI, Washington, DC.
Fondas, N. (1997), “Feminization unveiled: management qualities in contemporary writings”,
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 257-82.
French, M. (1985), Beyond Power. On Women, Men, and Morals, Summit Books, New York, NY.
Fried, Y., Slowik, L.H., Shperling, Z., Franz, C., Ben-David, H.A., Avital, N. and Yeverechyhau, U.
(2003), “The moderating effect of job security on the relation between role clarity and job
performance: a longitudinal field study”, Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 7, p. 787.
Friedan, B. (1963), The Feminist Mystique, Dell, New York, NY.
Fromm, E. (1962), Beyond the Chains of Illusion: My Encounter with Marx and Freud, Simon &
Schuster, New York, NY.
Gentle, M. (2003), “CRM: ready or not?”, Computerworld, Vol. 37 No. 33, p. 40.
Gilligan, C. (1982), In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Grant, J. (1988), “Women as managers: what they can offer to organizations”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 16 No. 3, p. 56 þ.
Gustavsen, B. (2001), “Theory and practice: the mediating discourse”, in Reason, P. and
Bradbury, H. (Eds), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage
Publications, London, pp. 173-83.
Gutek, B.A. (1985), Sex and the Workplace, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Hagerty, M.R. (1999), “Testing Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: national quality-of-life across time”,
Social Indicators Research, Vol. 46 No. 3, p. 249.
Hearn, J. and Parkin, P.W. (1983), “Gender and organizations: a selective review and a critique of
a neglected area”, Organization Studies, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 219-42.
Held, D. (1980), Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas, University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Hermans, H.J., Fiddelaers, R., Groot, R.D. and Nauta, J.F. (1990), “Self-confrontation as a method
for assessment and intervention in counseling”, Journal of Counseling and Development,
Vol. 69, pp. 156-62.
Hoffman, E. (1988), The Right to Be Human. A Biography of Abraham Maslow, St Martin’s Press,
New York, NY.
HR Focus (2004), “How to get ‘buy-in’ from the newest generation of employees”, HR Focus,
Vol. 81 No. 11, p. 5.
Huang, J. (2004), “The science of good and evil”, The Humanist, Vol. 64 No. 6, p. 38.
Johns, G. and Saks, A. (2005), Organizational Behavior, 6th ed., Pearson, Toronto.
Jones, M. (2004), “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can lower recidivism”, Corrections Today, Vol. 66
No. 4, p. 18.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1978), “The midcareer conundrum”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 45-62.
Kickul, J., Lester, S.W. and Belgio, E. (2004), “Attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of
psychological contract breach: a cross cultural comparison of the United States and Hong
Kong Chinese”, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, p. 229.
Kieser, A. (1994), “Why organization theory needs historical analyses – and how this should be
performed”, Organization Science, Vol. 5 No. 4.
Korman, A.K. (1974), Psychology of Motivation, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Hills, NJ.
Kuo, Y.-F. and Chen, L.-S. (2004), “Individual demographic differences and job satisfaction
among information technology personnel: an empirical study in Taiwan”, International
Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, p. 221.
Lamond, D.A. (1990), “The irrational use of Weber’s ideal types”, Australian Journal of Public
Administration, Vol. 49, pp. 464-73.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R.K. (1939), “Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally
created ‘social climates’”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 271-99.
Lowe, L., Mullen, J. and Mills, A.J. (2002), “Gendering the silences: psychoanalysis, gender and
organization studies”, paper presented in the Gender, Diversity and Organization Division
of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO, August.
Lowry, R.J. (Ed.) (1979), The Journals of A.H. Maslow, Vol. I, Brooks/Cole Publishing, Monterey,
CA.
Lucey, J., Bateman, N. and Hines, P. (2004), “Achieving pace and sustainability in a major lean
transition”, Management Services, Vol. 48 No. 9, p. 8.
Luke, J.E. (2004), “A polyester saga, geography and all”, Textile World, Vol. 154 No. 9, p. 70.
McFarland, D.E. (1964), Management: Principles and Practices, 2nd ed., The Macmillan
Company, New York, NY.
McShane, S. (2004), Canadian Organizational Behavior, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto.
Maslow: man
interrupted
1393
MD
43,10
Marrow, A.F. (1969), The Practical Theorist. The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin, Basic Books,
New York, NY.
1394
Maslow, A.H. (1954), Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Martin, J. (1990), “Deconstructing organizational taboos: the suppression of gender conflict in
organizations”, Organization Science, Vol. 1, pp. 339-59.
Maslow, A.H. (1943), “A theory of human motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 50, pp. 370-96.
Maslow, A.H. (1965), Eupsychian Management, HF5548.8.M374, R.D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Mills, A.J. (2004), “Feminist organizational analysis and the business textbook”, in Hodgson, D.E.
and Carter, C. (Eds), Management Knowledge and the New Employee, Ashgate, London,
pp. 30-48.
Mills, A.J. and Helms Hatfield, J. (1998), “From imperialism to globalization: internationalization
and the management text”, in Clegg, S.R., Ibarra, E. and Bueno, L. (Eds), Theories of the
Management Process: Making Sense through Difference, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 37-67.
Mills, A.J., Kelley, E. and Cooke, B. (2002), “Management theory in context: exploring the
influence of the Cold War”, in Spraakman, G. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Business History
Division of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, Winnipeg, Vol. 23, pp. 11-20.
Mills, A.J., Simmons, T. and Helms Mills, J. (2005), Reading Organization Theory: A Critical
Approach to the Study of Organizational Behavior and Structure, 3rd ed., Garamond Press,
Toronto.
Miner, J.B. and Daschler, P. (1973), “Personnel, attitudes, and motivation”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 389-91.
Nicholson-Lord, D. (2004), “Exodus: the great British migration”, New Statesman, Vol. 17 No. 818,
p. 16.
Peters, T.J. (1992), Liberation Management: Necessary Disorganization for the Nanosecond
Nineties, 1st ed., A.A. Knopf, New York, NY.
Peters, T.J. (1994), The Tom Peters Seminar: Crazy Times Call for Crazy Organizations, 1st ed.,
Vintage Books, New York, NY.
Pincus, J. (2004), “The consequences of unmet needs: the evolving role of motivation in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 3 No. 4, p. 375.
Pollert, A. (1981), Girls, Wives, Factory Lives, The Macmillan Press, London.
Quick, J.C. and Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (2000), “The next frontier: Edgar Schein on organization
therapy/commentary on the Edgar Schein interview”, The Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 31-48.
Rausch, E., Sherman, H. and Washbush, J. (2002), “Defining and assessing competencies for
competency-based, outcome-focused management”, The Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 21 Nos 3/4, pp. 184-201.
Raymond, M.A., Mittelstaedt, J.D. and Hopkins, C.D. (2003), “When is a hierarchy not a
hierarchy? Factors associated with different perceptions of needs, with implications for
standardization – adaptation decisions in Korea”, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 12-26.
Ritson, M. (2004), “Why are brand positionings made so complex?”, Marketing, p. 21.
Robbins, S.P. and Langton, N. (2003), Organization Behavior: Concepts, Controversies,
Applications, 3rd Canadian ed., Prentice-Hall, Toronto.
Rowlinson, M. and Procter, S. (1999), “Organizational culture and business history”,
Organization Studies, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 369-96.
Santosus, M. (2004), “They don’t care too much for money; once again, it behooves CIOs to
reward their star performers. But how will they do it? Cutting bonus checks would be the
wrong answer”, CIO, Vol. 17 No. 23, p. 1.
Senter, A. (2004), “An embarrassment of riches”, Director, Vol. 58 No. 4, p. 96.
Smircich, L. (1985), “Toward a women centered organization theory”, paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Diego, CA.
Wahba, M.A. and Bridwell, L.G. (1973), “Maslow reconsidered: a review of research on the need
hierarchy theory”, paper presented at The Academy of Management Conference, New
Orleans, LA.
Weatherbee, T. and Mills, A.J. (2002), “Here be dragons: psychotherapy and organizational
change”, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Atlantic Schools of Business Conference,
St Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, November 7-9, pp. 173-83.
Maslow: man
interrupted
1395